Syed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 232

1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $13,275.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. On 30 September 2022, the applicant lodged an application, under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 8 September 2022. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa under s 65 of the Act.
2. For the reasons that follow, the application to this Court is dismissed.

1. Clause 500.217(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) provided as a time of decision criterion for a student visa:

The applicant satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4010, 4013, 4014, 4020 and 4021.

1. Public interest criterion 4020 (also known as PIC 4020) in Schedule 4 to the Regulations relevantly provides:

(1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister ... a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:

(a) the application for the visa; or

(b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

...

(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

justify the granting of the visa.

(5) In this clause:

information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

(a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and

(b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

1. The term "bogus document" is defined in s 5F of the Act as follows:

"bogus document", in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

1. The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVETR Act) relevantly provides:

3 Definitions

In this Act:

...

NVR registered training organisation means a training organisation that is registered by the National VET Regulator as a registered training organisation under this Act.

...

VET information means information that is held by the National VET Regulator and relates to the performance of the Regulator's functions, including information and documents collected by the Regulator in the course of:

(a) the exercise of a power, or the performance of a function, under this Act; or

(b) the administration of this Act.

...

22 Condition - compliance with the VET Quality Framework

(1) An NVR registered training organisation must comply with the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations.

25 Condition - notifying National VET Regulator of material changes

(1) An NVR registered training organisation must notify the National VET Regulator, in writing, if: ...

(a) ...

(b) the name or contact details of an executive officer or high managerial agent of the organisation change; or ...

...

26 Condition - other information etc must be provided

(1) An NVR registered training organisation must give the National VET Regulator such information as the Regulator requests, by notice in writing, for the purposes of this Act, so long as the organisation is capable of complying with the request.

(2) ...

(3) An NVR registered training organisation must produce to the National VET Regulator such documents as the Regulator requests, by notice in writing, for the purposes of this Act, so long as the organisation is capable of complying with the request.

(1) The National VET Regulator may, at any time, conduct a compliance audit of an NVR registered training organisation's operations to assess whether the organisation continues to comply with this Act or the VET Quality Framework.

...

157 Functions of the National VET Regulator

(1) The National VET Regulator has the following functions:

(a) to register an organisation as an NVR registered training organisation;

(b) ...

(c) to carry out compliance audits of NVR registered training organisations; ...

185 Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for NVR registered training organisations, as agreed by the Ministerial Council.

...

205A Disclosing information to certain government bodies

(1) The National VET Regulator may disclose VET information to:

(a) a Commonwealth authority, or a State or Territory authority, if the Regulator is satisfied that the disclosure is necessary to enable or assist the authority to perform or exercise any of the authority's functions or powers; ...

1. The National VET Regulator is the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).
2. Sections 22 and 185 of the NVETR Act refer to standards for NVR registered training organisations (RTOs) . In 2015, Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (2015 Standards) were made under s 185 of the NVETR Act. The 2015 Standards remained in force in 2021. In the 2015 Standards:

(a) Clause 3.2 of Standard 3 provided that "All AQF certification documentation issued by an RTO meets the requirements of Schedule 5."

(b) In the Glossary, "AQF certification documentation" was defined as "the set of official documents that confirm that an AQF qualification or statement of attainment has been issued to an individual"; and "statement of attainment" was defined as "a statement issued to a person confirming that the person has satisfied the requirements of the unit/s of competency or accredited short course specified in the statement".

(c) Schedule 5 commenced with the statement that "RTOs must meet ... the following requirements", being the requirements in clauses 1 to 8 of Schedule 5. Clause 4 of Schedule 5 required RTOs to "retain records of AQF certification documentation issued for a period of 30 years". Clause 5 of Schedule 5 required RTOs to include specified information on a statement of attainment, including "the authorised signatory". Clause 8 of Schedule 5 required RTOs to "retain records of statements of attainment issued for a period of 30 years" and "provide reports of its records of statements of attainment issued to its VET Regulator on a regular basis, as determined by the VET Regulator".

(d) Clause 2.3 of Standard 2 provided that "The RTO ensures that where services are provided on its behalf by a third party the provision of those services is the subject of a written agreement". Clause 8.3 of Standard 8 provided that "The RTO notifies the Regulator: (a) of any written agreement entered into under Clause 2.3 for the delivery of services on its behalf within 30 calendar days of that agreement being entered into ....".

1. On 11 March 2021, the applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a subclass 500 student visa. The applicant provided with his application a document which, on its face, was a "Certificate of Completion" issued by the Institute of Advancing Careers in respect of a Diploma of Business completed by the applicant (Certificate of Completion). The Certificate of Completion was dated 25 February 2021.
2. On 8 October 2021, the Department of Home Affairs (Department), after receiving information which suggested the Certificate of Completion may be a bogus document, sent the applicant a letter inviting him to comment on this adverse information.
3. On or about 27 October 2021, the applicant provided a response to the Department's letter.
4. On 8 November 2021, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa. The delegate found that the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document and therefore the applicant did not meet PIC 4020 and did not satisfy cl 500.217 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
5. On 26 November 2021, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
6. On 15 August 2022, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing by telephone on 8 September 2022.
7. On 8 September 2022, the applicant appeared at the hearing before the Tribunal by telephone, to give evidence and present arguments.
8. Shortly before the hearing, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a certificate issued under s 375A of the Act (S 375A Certificate) which certified that the disclosure of five documents specified in the certificate would be contrary to the public interest. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the validity of the S 375A Certificate and, according to the Tribunal's decision at [27]-[28], "put to the applicant clear particulars of the gist of the information in the five documents". The relevance of the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate is explained below.
9. On 8 September 2022, following the hearing, the Tribunal made an oral decision affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a student visa. On 19 October 2022, the Tribunal posted the applicant a written statement of its reasons given orally on 8 September 2022.

1. The Tribunal at [8]-[9] stated that "the issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 as required by cl 500.217(1) for the grant of the visa" and summarised the requirements of PIC 4020.
2. The Tribunal at [10]-[37] considered whether the applicant gave or caused to be given a bogus document to the Department. The Tribunal at [35] concluded:

Based on the information from the Department, particularly the information covered by the section 375A certificate, and taking into account the applicant's written and oral evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the Diploma of Business certificate dated 25 February 2021 is a bogus document. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant gave the Department the document in relation to his application for a student visa.

1. It followed, as found by the Tribunal at [37], that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(1).
2. The Tribunal at [38]-[46] considered whether the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived. The Tribunal at [46] concluded that the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived.
3. It followed that the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purpose of cl 500.217(1) and therefore the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a student visa.

Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 27 November 2025

1. On 30 September 2022, the applicant lodged an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (Application). The Application contained the following grounds (as written):

7. I was not given fair chance to speak, the member errored by sending me decision letter without the case particular and reasons for affirming my case.

8. The grounds of the application for my case to be re-considered by Federal Circuit Court are as follows:

1. The Department of Home Affairs made a procedural error by not correctly assessing information relevant to my circumstance. The department failed to consider the other relevant matter in support of my case and previous immigration history and compliance with the visa condition was not considered.

2. I accept that I wasn't given a reasonable chance to give the verbal confirmations to the part. Department of Home Affairs have expressed that they are satisfied that I do not meet clause 500.217. In my case, I had provided documents on 27 Oct 2021 titled email confirmation of genuine documents, bank statement shows deposit payment, proof of deposit, reply to s57, Sonu HDFC statement and fd sohail. In my email I had confirmed the checks are entirely untrue as I had contacted the Institute of Advanced Careers and they had confirmed that the department had not contacted the Institute of Advanced Careers. I had also provided an email correspondence from Institute of Advanced Careers.

3. Tribunal misconstrued condition cl.500.217 and erred in believing that I have given or caused to be given a bogus document within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Migration Act or information that is false or misleading in a material particular. Therefore, they were not satisfied that the I meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, subclause 4020(1)

4. The Tribunal disregarded the fact that by not granting me permission to study, I would incur a significant financial loss because I spent a lot of time and money studying in Australia, which would negatively impact my future.

5. The member erred in affirming my application without providing me with any further time or any justification in terms of law or fact.

6. My application obviously makes a questionable point, and the tribunal's decision must once more be ignored because it is invalid and incomplete.

7. I want to submit an application to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia because significant justice was not rendered.

1. On 12 January 2023, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders, including that, upon the matter being listed for hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission, any amended application with proper particulars and any additional evidence.
2. Following a period of inactivity, on 23 September 2025 the parties were notified by the registry of the Court that the matter was listed for hearing on 27 November 2025, which was later adjourned to 17 December 2025.
3. On 13 November 2025, the first respondent filed a written submission (RS).
4. On 3 December 2025, the first respondent filed an affidavit which contained a partially redacted copy of the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate before the Tribunal. I appreciate that the first respondent took this step. Disclosure to the applicant of the partially redacted copy of the documents provides transparency to the applicant and assists:

(a) the applicant in understanding why the Tribunal found the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document; and

(b) the Court in reviewing the Tribunal's decision.

1. The applicant did not file a written submission or any other documents prior to the hearing.

1. At the hearing in this Court on 17 December 2025, the applicant appeared unrepresented, assisted by an Urdu interpreter. Matthew Wong from MinterEllison appeared for the first respondent.
2. Mr Wong tendered a copy of the Court Book (CB). Mr Wong also read the affidavit referred to in paragraph 27 above and thereby put before the Court a partially redacted copy of the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate.
3. I invited the applicant to make closing oral submissions. I explained to the applicant that he must persuade the Court there is a jurisdictional error, which I described as a significant mistake or error, in the Tribunal's decision.
4. Mr Wong then made closing oral submissions.
5. I address the parties' submissions below.
6. During the hearing, it appeared to me that aspects of the regulatory scheme concerning record-keeping by RTOs, and the obligation of RTOs to provide information to the regulator, may be relevant to whether it was open to the Tribunal to draw inferences adverse to the applicant from the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate. I directed the parties to file and serve a post-hearing submission concerning this issue. On 2 February 2026, the first respondent filed an affidavit and post-hearing submission. The applicant did not file any further materials.

Whether error in inferences drawn by Tribunal from documents subject of S 375A Certificate

Based on the information from the Department, particularly the information covered by the section 375A certificate, and taking into account the applicant's written and oral evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the Diploma of Business certificate dated 25 February 2021 is a bogus document ...

1. A question is whether it was open to the Tribunal to find the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document. This question requires consideration of:

(a) the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate;

(b) the legislative scheme in the NVETR Act; and

(c) the applicant's written and oral evidence before the Tribunal.

1. The following paragraphs review the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate.
2. On 11 March 2021, an officer of Australian Border Force (ABF) sent an email to an officer of ASQA which stated in part:

We are prepping for warrant activity in the next few weeks in relation to the investigation you previously provided information for between September and December last year ... I would appreciate if you could be able to provide a statement for the disclosures made between these dates - including what information records was relied on by ASQA to provide the disclosed summaries of the validity of the certificates forwarded to you. Based on my records, these should include:

• Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd ...

1. The above email referred to Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd (TOV). There was material before the Tribunal that TOV was an RTO that traded as Institute of Advancing Careers.
2. On 12 May 2021, the ABF officer sent an email to the ASQA officer which stated in part:

As a result of the warrant activity, we seized large amounts of education documents from the same RTOs that you have provided disclosures on. Once I have had a chance to go through the digital evidence received, I may seek ASQA's assistance to verify the validity of the certificates/qualifications ...

As before, we will be able to verify the certificates where we hold the student records.

1. On 14 July 2021, the ABF officer sent an email to the ASQA officer which stated in part:

The below are the certificates seized from three of the warrant premises purportedly issued by Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd (RTO 41388), trading as both the Institute of Advancing Careers and [redacted] ... Many of them came with a letter stating that the qualification was achieved through RPL. Given the correspondence seized with the certificates, it does not appear that any genuine RPL process was undertaken before the certificates were sent through by the third parties involved.

I note that in your email disclosure dated 10 November 2020 you advised that the organisation has provided information to ASQA that it has not enrolled any students or issued any qualifications or statement of attainment during the period 13 March 2020 to 20 October 2020. I note a number of the below were purportedly issued after this date.

I have concern with the authorised signatories, as there are three different ones within similar time frames. In addition, [Ms C] appears to be a real person but there is no open source information to suggest she is associated in any way with this RTO. Nor is there any information to link a [redacted] to the RTO (as an authorising office holder) ...

The email continued with a table of certificates. Subject to one matter, the table includes the Certificate of Completion issued in the name of the applicant. The one matter is that the Certificate of Completion provided by the applicant to the Department had a reference number "IAC200655", while the certificate in the applicant's name in the table refers to reference number "IAC200635". It appears to me that the reference number in the table in the email contains a typographical error and should have read "IAC200655", and the typographical error is repeated in the table referred to in paragraph 44 below which includes the correct date for the Certificate of Completion. Alternatively, if the reference number in the table does not contain a typographical error, that the certificate in the name of the applicant seized from the warrant premises contains details inconsistent with the Certificate of Completion undermines, rather than supports, the authenticity of the Certificate of Completion.

1. In the email in the above paragraph, the ABF officer referred to "RPL". Information on ASQA's website states:

Recognition of prior learning (RPL) is a process that assesses your competency - acquired through formal and informal learning - to determine if you meet the requirements for a unit of study.

1. On 14 September 2021, the ASQA officer emailed the ABF officer a letter from ASQA to ABF dated 13 September 2021 with the subject matter "Disclosure of vocational education and training (VET) information pursuant to section 205A of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011". The letter commenced:

ASQA has received a request from you in relation to verification of the following certificates purportedly issued by Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd, RTO ID 41388.

This paragraph was followed by a table of certificates, including the Certificate of Completion issued in the name of the applicant dated 25 February 2021. Following the table of certificates, the letter continued:

I disclose the following information:

• Records of certificates issued by Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd, RTO ID 41388 were provided to ASQA on 5 March 2020, 22 July 2021 and 7 July 2021:
  • These records indicate that there were no certificates issued between 30 January 2020 and 7 July 2021;
  • These records do not contain any record of the student names [redacted] or any record of any certificates for [redacted] being issued on [redacted].
• [Ms C] is listed in ASQA's records as the CEO of NSW Institute of Education and Training Pty Ltd, RTO ID 45501. There is no third-party agreement listed between this provider and Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd in ASQA's records.

• ...
  • Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd does not have any third-party service agreements with other training providers listed in ASQA's records.

1. On 8 October 2021, the ABF officer sent an email to an officer from the Department with the applicant's name as the subject matter. The email stated in part:

On 14 September 2021 I received a disclosure certificate from the Australian Skills Quality Authority in relation to the registered training organisation Training Organisation Victoria Pty Ltd ...

As a result of this information, the certificate that the aforementioned visa applicant provided in his student visa application ... cannot be a genuine document ...

... Can I just ask that if any correspondence or disclosure is received from the visa applicant that indicates how/where or from whom he obtained the documents in question, that I be contacted, as this may be of relevance to our investigation.

1. On 1 November 2021, the officer from the Department replied to the ABF officer stating:

I have received a response from the above applicant. The applicant has provided several documents in response to the NJ sent, one being an email from Institute of Advancing Careers. The documents are attached to the browser.

1. On 1 November 2021, the ABF officer replied to the officer from the Department stating:

I am aware of this email address info@iac.com.au.

It is printed on the bottom of the fraudulent certificates. We are aware that one of our POI's in particular has access to email accounts belonging to the training organisation.

I can confirm that the information provided to the ABF by the regulatory body ASQA is still valid.

...

I will also be referring this email address to ASQA. As far as I understand, the only email address registered for the training organisation is the one listed on the training.gov.au link ...

1. On one interpretation of information in the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate:

(a) between 11 March and 12 May 2021, ABF seized a large number of documents from some RTOs, including TOV which was responsible for issuing the Certificate of Completion to the applicant; and

(b) the documents included a copy of the Certificate of Completion.

That both the applicant and, on this interpretation, what appeared to be the RTO responsible for issuing the Certificate of Completion, had a copy of the Certificate of Completion provides some support for a conclusion that the Certificate of Completion was a genuine document.

1. However, a closer consideration of information in the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate, together with the regulatory scheme, provides support for a conclusion that the Certificate of Completion may not be genuine. Specifically:

(a) TOV, like all RTOs, had an obligation under clause 8 of Schedule 5 of the 2015 Standards to "provide reports of its records of statements of attainment issued to its VET Regulator on a regular basis, as determined by the VET Regulator". Whether pursuant to this obligation or a request for information by ASQA, under s 26 of the NVETR Act, as stated in the letter from ASQA dated 13 September 2021, TOV provided records of certificates to ASQA on specified dates up to 7 July 2021 and "these records indicate that there were no certificates issued between 30 January 2020 and 7 July 2021". In light of the regulatory scheme, I consider that the absence of records of certificates between 30 January 2020 and 7 July 2021 provides a rational basis for an inference that TOV issued no certificates in this period.

(b) Consistent with the information in the above sub-paragraph, as stated in an email from the ABF officer to the ASQA officer on 14 July 2021, on 10 November 2020 ASQA informed ABF in an email that TOV "has provided information to ASQA that it has not enrolled any students or issued any qualifications or statement of attainment during the period 13 March 2020 to 20 October 2020".

(c) Section 25 of the NVETR Act states that an RTO must notify ASQA "in writing, if the name or contact details of an executive officer or high managerial agent of the organisation change". Clause 8.3 of Standard 8 of the 2015 Standards provided that "The RTO notifies the Regulator: (a) of any written agreement entered into under Clause 2.3 for the delivery of services on its behalf within 30 calendar days of that agreement being entered into ....". Clause 5 of Schedule 5 of the 2015 Standards required RTOs to include specified information on a statement of attainment, including "the authorised signatory". The name of the authorised signatory on the Certificate of Completion was [Ms C]. However, as stated in the letter from ASQA dated 13 September 2021, "[Ms C] is listed in ASQA's records as the CEO of NSW Institute of Education and Training Pty Ltd [and] there is no third-party agreement listed between this provider and TOV in ASQA's records". In light of the regulatory scheme referred to in the first few sentences of this sub-paragraph, I consider that it was open to a decision-maker, in light of the appearance of [Ms C's] name on the Certificate of Completion, to be concerned about the genuineness of the Certificate of Completion.

1. The Tribunal at [35] stated that it "[took] into account the applicant's written and oral evidence" concerning the genuineness of the Certificate of Completion. That evidence, and some comments about the evidence, are as follows:

(a) In the lower right corner of the Certificate of Completion is an email address info@iacareers.com.au. On 20 October 2021, the applicant sent an email to this email address in which he asked the RTO to "confirm the authenticity of" the Certificate of Completion: CB 57. On 22 October 2021, the applicant received the following reply (22 October Email):

Thanks for your email. We can confirm the issued qualification is genuine and authentic ...

This was followed by a signature block which included the name of the person who sent the email and a logo for the Institute of Advancing Careers. The 22 October Email, on initial consideration, provides evidence in support of a conclusion that the Certificate of Completion is a genuine document. However, the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate included the email chain between an officer of the Department and the ABF officer set out in paragraphs 45 to 47 above. The email from the ABF officer dated 1 November 2021 stated, with reference to the email address printed in the lower right corner of the Certificate of Completion, that a person of interest had "access to email accounts belonging to the training organisation". I consider that it was open to the Tribunal to consider this information undermined the probative value or reliability of the 22 October Email.

(b) Further, as recorded by the Tribunal at [28], during the hearing on 8 September 2022, the Tribunal told the applicant that ABF "were aware that someone they were investigating has access to this email account", being info@iacareers.com.au. The Tribunal thereby put the applicant on notice of information which undermined the probative value or reliability of the 22 October Email.

(c) Based on information in the Court Book, the applicant provided a response on three occasions to the Department's concern, first communicated in its letter dated 8 October 2021, that the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document - in a response dated 27 October 2021 (CB 61), in a statement at CB 106-109 provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 8 September 2022, and orally at the hearing on 8 September 2022. The Certificate of Completion certified that the applicant had fulfilled the requirements of a Diploma of Business Course which comprised eight units of study. The applicant gave scant evidence or information about the content of the Diploma of Business course or the time he spent undertaking the course. His most detailed evidence, recorded by the Tribunal at [30]-[33], was that he "enrolled and studied for this course" during the pandemic period, "he had been attending online classes", and "he received online teaching from the Institute [of Advancing Careers]".

1. Public interest criterion 4020(1) requires that "there is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given" the Minister a bogus document. A "bogus document" means a document that the Minister "reasonably suspects" is, among other possibilities, counterfeit. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the document in question is counterfeit. It is sufficient if the Tribunal "reasonably suspects" that the document is of the character described in the definition: see Salopal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1308 at [86] and [94]. I consider that information in the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate "objectively viewed, [is] sufficient to induce the relevant state of mind, ie suspicion, in a reasonable person": Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 51; 250 FCR 309 at [92]. For these reasons, I consider that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude at [35] that the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document.

1. In paragraph 7 of the Application the applicant asserts that he "was not given a fair chance to speak" at the hearing before the Tribunal on 8 September 2022. The applicant has not particularised the manner in which he was not given a fair chance to speak. A "failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it": NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 at [37]. In any event, I disagree that the applicant was not given a fair chance to speak. The Tribunal's decision at [26]-[34] records the Tribunal's summary of the discussion between the applicant and Tribunal member at the hearing. Based on the Tribunal's summary, I consider the applicant was given a fair chance to speak.
2. In paragraph 7 of the Application the applicant also asserts that the member erred "by sending me decision letter without the case particular and reasons for affirming my case". As recorded in a letter from the Tribunal to the applicant dated 19 October 2022 (CB 145):

(a) At the hearing on 8 September 2022, the Tribunal member notified the applicant of the Tribunal's decision and gave an oral statement of reasons.

(b) On 6 October 2022, the applicant requested a written statement of the decision and reasons given orally at the hearing.

(c) On 19 October 2022, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a written statement of reasons.

It follows that, contrary to the applicant's assertion, the Tribunal sent the applicant a written statement of reasons.

1. In paragraph 8(1) and (2) of the Application the applicant complains about the decision of the delegate. The task of the Court is to consider whether or not there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. In light of ss 476(2)(a) and 476(4)(a) of the Act, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision.
2. In paragraph 8(3) of the Application the applicant asserts that the Tribunal misconstrued cl 500.217 and erred in finding at [35] that "the Diploma of Business certificate ... is a bogus document". For reasons explained in paragraphs 49 to 51 above, I consider that it was open to the Tribunal to find that the Certificate of Completion was a bogus document. The applicant has not otherwise explained the error asserted in paragraph 8(3) of the Application.
3. In paragraph 8(4) of the Application the applicant claims that the Tribunal "disregarded the fact that by not granting me permission to study, I would incur a significant financial loss because I spent a lot of time and money studying in Australia, which would negatively impact my future". If the applicant's complaint is that the Tribunal disregarded this matter in considering whether to waive the requirements of PIC 4020(1)(a), it is not evident the applicant made this submission to the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot disregard a submission not made to the Tribunal. If the applicant's complaint is that the Tribunal disregarded this matter in considering whether to grant the applicant a student visa, as correctly stated by the first respondent at RS [29], "the Tribunal, having been satisfied that the applicant did not meet cl 500.217, was not required to proceed to assess the applicant against any of the remaining visa criteria".
4. In paragraph 8(5) of the Application the applicant asserts that the Tribunal erred by failing to provide the applicant "with any further time". However, the Tribunal, after explaining to the applicant the gist of the documents the subject of the S 375A Certificate (see at [28]), recorded at [29] that it "told the applicant he may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information and the applicant advised that he was happy to respond to the information now". I reject the assertion that the Tribunal acted unreasonably by not providing the applicant with further time to respond to matters raised by the Tribunal with the applicant at the hearing.
5. For the above reasons, the Application does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision, and the Application must be dismissed.

1. I will hear submissions on costs at the delivery of judgment.

I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.